Skeptics vs. Atheists?

Greg at The Daily Grail recently looked at a new "skeptic handbook," noting that he...

...found the call to respect religion rather odd, given the usual attack lines of skeptical groups. I'm not sure where one draws the line between making fun of someone that believes that beings from Zeta Reticuli visited them in their bedroom last week, and respecting another person that believes that some Jewish guy resurrected from the dead 2000 years ago and in doing so absolved the entire world population of its sins.

I would imagine this edict is not a consensus view in skeptical circles, although there was little debate about it in this booklet. I guess it ties in to the suggestion to make allies - although again, if that was the case then skeptical groups could make great steps by engaging with the 'real' researchers of paranormal claims out there, rather than making fun of them and their topics.

Greg is referring to this paragraph:

19. Remember that “skepticism” is different from “atheism.” ....You don’t have to be against god to be against fraud.

That policy is certainly not going to please militant atheists like PZ Myers, who attacked this kind of backsliding in a recent rant. But it speaks to a long-standing question of mine concerning the skeptic movement - might it not exist primarily to suppress unsanctioned belief systems- and as we see above, bolster the officially-sanctioned ones?

After all, how productive is it really to worry about a handful of grannies dabbling in mediumship or palmistry or therapeutic touch when thousands and thousands of people are killed every year over beliefs in spirits and gods and sacred texts?

.